to heck with the video and its contents. what I want to know is who is responsible for prosecuting instances of perjury and copyright abuse and why are they getting our tax money but doing nothing?
1 Like
It appears someone forgot to attach said ‘shoot-first’ video?
2 Likes
He didn’t ask whether he military should be performing civilian policing tasks, just whether individuals who were in the military are suited for police work once they leave the military.
1 Like
That’s not even a semantic difference, just an empty choice of words.
Apparently at least one politician in Australia or New Zealand is apparently facing perjury charges over a fraudulent DMCA take down, so maybe people can get the ball rolling.
I got that alright. I just wanted to make the point that they should not be seen as correlating professions. The military training which might help you prepare for being a police would be peacekeeping if you have training in that. The rest of it should be irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst for a copper.
That said I did see some US army Afghanistan veterans commenting on some of the militarised policing in the US - pointing guns at unarmed protestors for example - which suggests that US army training is more aimed at civil society than your police.
Paramilitary: worst of both worlds.
I may have used some unparliamentary language in various threads about paramilitary police.
1 Like
I would hardly call that a ‘shoot first’ recruiting video. There were certainly a few guns in it, but these are police officers. Gun use is (unfortunately) part of their job.
Um is the video linked above really the one that’s “controversial” or was there a switcheroo? Cus um nothing to see here really? other than maybe embarrassing in an out of date 80’s sort of way.
How is this even remotely controversial? Looked like a perfectly normal recruiting video to me. What am I missing?
I think military Officers, and possibly Non-Field Specialists (like tech folk), might make decent, civilized, and honorable Police Officers… Not ground forces, tasked primarily with fighting.
But then I don’t think Police ‘forces’ should exist… I do think Citizen Safety Services should exist. They should be publicly accountable, localized, primarily unarmed (but defensible: batons, mace, armor, and weapon trained), paid part-time/full-time, and voluntary citizens; helping other citizens and working to keep the peace.
Their primary goal would be to identify people in need and provide peaceful assistance. They’d have to be trained to use words first. And to only use force of any kind when it was absolutely believed to be necessary to protect a ‘person’ or an ‘animal’ from immediate harm.
Resistance isn’t a crime. Running/evading isn’t a crime. Crimes aren’t even crimes: there’s more to them than that. And we need to work address those underlying issues 99% of the time, if we want to call ourselves civilized.
4 Likes
I always forget at times like these that the vast majority of military aren’t actually the ones tasked with killing. But they do get training and I don’t think that helps.
Oh, we have those already.
Or Vaudeville.
Oh, wait, that’s gone
Nevermind…
Therein lies a great deal of the problem.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
